[sologoub]

From what I understand, the patent office essentially is not empowered to say "no" to a patent request. The most they can do is keep sending it back for revisions, but if you have enough money and lawyers, you get to basically wear the examiner down or get a different examiner more willing to let it go.

An outright rejection process would go a long way to fixing some of this crap.

[Afton]

How would a rejection differ from sending it back for revisions? Are you imagining a blackout period for that submitter?

[sukilot]

The first review can be binding, so a peer reviewer is forbidden from overriding any findings of prior art. Appeals could require litigation or.exponentially increasing fees .

[Afton]

Please answer these two questions:

1. What is wrong with revising a patent based on Patent Office feedback? "P.O.:This is objectionable for reasons x, y, z" , "Applicant: Ok, thanks, I'll change x, y, z so as not to be objectionable". This seems like a reasonable exchange on the face of it.

2. How will you distinguish 'revisions' from 'new' patents that are substantially similar to previous patent applications?

Remember that some companies (MSFT/Google/IBM) file for many, many patents every year.

[sologoub]

Revisions can keep coming back. No one in the patent office can stop the patent outright and prevent it from coming back. If someone file a patent for something obvious, the examiner cannot completely reject it.

Ideally, the rejection should go in a searchable database/knowledgebase and prevent from anyone else, including the original filer from filling again.